The 10 Year Tax Lie

[saveliberty]

If 50% of people are not paying taxes , then the other 50% is carrying their load.

As brillian as you are I'm sure you know that Ayn Rand accepted her social security checks.

I'm as sure that she paid into the Social Security Insurance program. It's not welfare to get YOUR money back. It's welfare when you take what was someone elses.

Half or more of your social security check was paid by the business you worked for.

 

[Murf76]

It's an even sadder state when some of the wealthiest Americans have conned millions of average Americans into voting against their own rational self interest.

What the hell would a socialist know about self-interest??? The self-interest of freedom-loving individuals is best served by not having a jackboot on one's throat. That way, the opportunity that is our birthright is preserved.

A jackboot on one's throat? A top marginal rate of 39.6% is a "jackboot on one's throat? For Fuck's sake, that would make General Eisenhower a triple-duper Jackboot thug of extraordinary power.

Seriously, how is an increase of 4.6 points in the top marginal rate for labor income a sign that someone has had a jackboot placed on their throat?

You socialist thieves have NO RIGHT to 40% of ANYONE's earnings. You have no right to micromanage people's businesses or their healthcare decisions or what they eat. And the absolute GALL of this administration to insist it should have one thin dime more from any American when they can't be bothered to make a budget or even look at our broken entitlement system is astounding.

This is nothing but class warfare from the left, designed to divide and to divert attention from Barack Obama's inept leadership. Even if he got his miserable tax hikes on the so-called "rich" tomorrow, it would only result in a measly 28 billion per year. That's NOTHING when they're spending nearly 7 million per minute. But damn if it won't hurt small businesses and further erode consumer confidence.

You stand with liars and con men and wannabe jackboots.

 

[8537]

Uhhh.. nope.. NOT EVERYONE WITH A JOB pays a higher rate than Romney.. many 'working poor' get more back in 'refunds', credits, freebies, and entitlements than they put in

"many" get more back in the EITC and other credits than the 15.3% they pay in?

I'd like to see "many' defined and that claim substantiated. But let me rephrase my original statement to be more accurate:

Most people with a job pay a combined higher rate than Mitt Romney. I'm sure the public will feel better knowing that Mitt pays a higher rate than someone who qualifies for the EITC.

But hey, it is you guys who want nothing to do with a flat tax with no ceiling, floor, loopholes, or exceptions and treating all income equally... I wonder why that is??!!??

who are "you guys"?

I presume your flat tax wet dream would apply to all sources of income - labor, investment, corporate etc....

All sources of income... correct.. capital gains, interest, wages, etc... all the same...

Now as for business or corporate, they should have a flat rate too... whether that would be he same as income tax, would be a discussion to have

Why would that need to be a discussion? They are tax paying entities just like anyone else so why should they not be taxed like anyone else?

As for 'you guys'... it means the leftists... who continually champion taxing the 'rich' more, for obvious reasons

True, reasons like: Very wealthy Americans like Mitt Romney pay a lower rate than people with income levels just barely above the maximum to qualify for the EITC. In other words, the tax system is currently regressive in that sense. Mitt is not contributing his carrying his load, to use your analogy. If you agree that capital gains should be taxed at the exact same rate as wages then you de facto agree that Mitt Romney's tax rate is too low relative to other people -that he's not carrying his load.

thank you for supporting the leftist idea that Mitt Romney is not carrying his load.

 

[8537]

As brillian as you are I'm sure you know that Ayn Rand accepted her social security checks.

I'm as sure that she paid into the Social Security Insurance program. It's not welfare to get YOUR money back. It's welfare when you take what was someone elses.

Half or more of your social security check was paid by the business you worked for.

Wait what?!

We've been hearing chirps for years that businesses simply pass taxes on to others. You don't think businesses pass on the payroll tax to employees in the form of lower wages?

 

[freedombecki]

The Obama campaign and their lapdog media cohorts have concocted the 10 years of taxes nonsense. Other than Obama, no other president released multiple years of tax returns prior to taking office. Can this president be honest about anything? See for yourself at the link.

******************************************************
Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

lol

Yep, the Fifth Column has become a deadweight in America with their lying infotainment.

 

[8537]

What the hell would a socialist know about self-interest??? The self-interest of freedom-loving individuals is best served by not having a jackboot on one's throat. That way, the opportunity that is our birthright is preserved.

A jackboot on one's throat? A top marginal rate of 39.6% is a "jackboot on one's throat? For Fuck's sake, that would make General Eisenhower a triple-duper Jackboot thug of extraordinary power.

Seriously, how is an increase of 4.6 points in the top marginal rate for labor income a sign that someone has had a jackboot placed on their throat?

You socialist thieves have NO RIGHT to 40% of ANYONE's earnings.

Well first of all I have no idea how you decide what percentage the government has a right to. Once you get above 0% it's all a matter of degrees and scale. It's not black and white.

But more importantly, no one pays 40% in federal income taxes. No one pays 35% either. These are marginal rates, something that seems to escape every Republican.

You kneel beside con men, being led around on a chain by a small plutocracy and sent to do their bidding.

 

[Katzndogz]

Your investments come with risks, my investments come with risks

If you are one of the 1%, you got there by making sure you are not taking risks. Risks are for the little guy

Why do we need to raise taxes?

We have over $1 trillion a year deficit and $15 trillion in debt

Only a conservative thinks we can erradicate it by CUTTING taxes

I think that your envy has clouded your judgement. Even the 1% people take risk when they invest. Don't confuse them not risking everything they have worked for as being safe from losses.

We have over a trillion dollars a year in deficit. Lets leave the debt alone for a minute and concentrate on that.

How much more money are you willing to demand as a 'fair share' from these rich? How far will you bump this, and tell Me how much per year will be collected.


btw...I haven' said a word about cutting taxes.

Fair share?

How bout we start with returning to pre-Bush tax cut rates. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in jobs....how did that work out?

It worked out just fine. The UE rate was just over 4%. It was not until obama declared war on the American businessman that the UE rate started rising. And, more importantly, not falling.

 

[8537]

The Obama campaign and their lapdog media cohorts have concocted the 10 years of taxes nonsense. Other than Obama, no other president released multiple years of tax returns prior to taking office. Can this president be honest about anything? See for yourself at the link.

******************************************************
Tax History Project: Presidential Tax Returns

lol

Yep, the Fifth Column has become a deadweight in America with their lying infotainment.

I'm quite certain you don't know what Fifth Column means. In the above context it makes zero sense.

 

[8537]

I think that your envy has clouded your judgement. Even the 1% people take risk when they invest. Don't confuse them not risking everything they have worked for as being safe from losses.

We have over a trillion dollars a year in deficit. Lets leave the debt alone for a minute and concentrate on that.

How much more money are you willing to demand as a 'fair share' from these rich? How far will you bump this, and tell Me how much per year will be collected.


btw...I haven' said a word about cutting taxes.

Fair share?

How bout we start with returning to pre-Bush tax cut rates. Those tax cuts were supposed to result in jobs....how did that work out?

It worked out just fine. The UE rate was just over 4%. It was not until obama declared war on the American businessman that the UE rate started rising. And, more importantly, not falling.

Wait what?!

Unemployment rate:

2007 4.6 4.5 4.4 4.5 4.4 4.6 4.7 4.6 4.7 4.7 4.7 5.0
2008 5.0 4.9 5.1 5.0 5.4 5.6 5.8 6.1 6.1 6.5 6.8 7.3
2009 7.8 8.3 8.7 8.9 9.4 9.5 9.5 9.6 9.8 10.0 9.9 9.9

When was this war declared by Obama? May of 2007, almost two years before he took office?

 

[Murf76]

A jackboot on one's throat? A top marginal rate of 39.6% is a "jackboot on one's throat? For Fuck's sake, that would make General Eisenhower a triple-duper Jackboot thug of extraordinary power.

Seriously, how is an increase of 4.6 points in the top marginal rate for labor income a sign that someone has had a jackboot placed on their throat?

You socialist thieves have NO RIGHT to 40% of ANYONE's earnings.

Well first of all I have no idea how you decide what percentage the government has a right to. Once you get above 0% it's all a matter of degrees and scale. It's not black and white.

But more importantly, no one pays 40% in federal income taxes. No one pays 35% either. These are marginal rates, something that seems to escape every Republican.

You kneel beside con men, being led around on a chain by a small plutocracy and sent to do their bidding.

Where's the budget? This administration wants more money... where's the budget they're going to use to spend it? Where are the reforms of our broken entitlements? And what are they going to spend the measly 28 billion they intend to raise with their class warfare gimmick on?

Let's not forget, this was the "unity" candidate, the "no red states, no blue states" candidate, the guy who was going to "change the way Washington does business".
And all he's got to offer is more partisanship, more cronyism, and cheap political stunts. No solutions to the nation's problems, not even a responsible work ethic to do the job he already has and could be doing today if he wasn't so busy golfing and attending fundraisers. He's had three and a half years already to make a budget or tackle entitlements, the first two of them with Democrats in control of Congress. There was even a small spate in which that Congress was bullet-proof and Republicans could have done literally NOTHING to stop him from doing whatever he wanted... including raising taxes on the so-called "rich". New estimates on our federal liabilities stand today at 222 TRILLION. So, why didn't he get any of that done? Why didn't he do the job he supposedly wants to keep when he had it?

 

[8537]

You socialist thieves have NO RIGHT to 40% of ANYONE's earnings.

Well first of all I have no idea how you decide what percentage the government has a right to. Once you get above 0% it's all a matter of degrees and scale. It's not black and white.

But more importantly, no one pays 40% in federal income taxes. No one pays 35% either. These are marginal rates, something that seems to escape every Republican.

You kneel beside con men, being led around on a chain by a small plutocracy and sent to do their bidding.

Where's the budget? This administration wants more money... where's the budget they're going to use to spend it?

The executive branch does not have constitutional authority to pass a budget. That responsibility resides with Congress and must originate in the House.

Let's not forget, this was the "unity" candidate, the "no red states, no blue states" candidate, the guy who was going to "change the way Washington does business".

That's made difficult when the opposition party starts your presidency by telling the world their number one goal is to make sure you fail. It's also made difficult when the President offers a series of proposals that have had significant Republican support in the past (and in fact, proposals created by Republicans) and the opposition party dismisses them as socialist junk.

New estimates on our federal liabilities stand today at 222 TRILLION. So, why didn't he get any of that done? Why didn't he do the job he supposedly wants to keep when he had it?

Oh just shut up. Every time a so-called Con talks about the budget the future liabilities number grows. 222 trillion? Lol. Let's just call it 100 quintillion or so and be done with it.

Hint: There is no federal liability for future entitlements. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

 

[J.E.D]

The 10 Year Tax Lie

It won't be a lie unless Romney proves it's a lie. The only way he can do that is by releasing those tax returns

 

[Murf76]

Well first of all I have no idea how you decide what percentage the government has a right to. Once you get above 0% it's all a matter of degrees and scale. It's not black and white.

But more importantly, no one pays 40% in federal income taxes. No one pays 35% either. These are marginal rates, something that seems to escape every Republican.

You kneel beside con men, being led around on a chain by a small plutocracy and sent to do their bidding.

Where's the budget? This administration wants more money... where's the budget they're going to use to spend it?

The executive branch does not have constitutional authority to pass a budget. That responsibility resides with Congress and must originate in the House.

Let's not forget, this was the "unity" candidate, the "no red states, no blue states" candidate, the guy who was going to "change the way Washington does business".

That's made difficult when the opposition party starts your presidency by telling the world their number one goal is to make sure you fail. It's also made difficult when the President offers a series of proposals that have had significant Republican support in the past (and in fact, proposals created by Republicans) and the opposition party dismisses them as socialist junk.

New estimates on our federal liabilities stand today at 222 TRILLION. So, why didn't he get any of that done? Why didn't he do the job he supposedly wants to keep when he had it?

Oh just shut up. Every time a so-called Con talks about the budget the future liabilities number grows. 222 trillion? Lol. Let's just call it 100 quintillion or so and be done with it.

Hint: There is no federal liability for future entitlements. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

So basically what you're telling us is that Barack Obama is such a failure at leadership that he can't even interest his own party in his ridiculous agenda. Good to know.
But I guess we should've picked up on that when he couldn't even get one Democrat vote on his proffered budget.

Oh... and you know why getting Barack Obama out of office is a Republican priority?... It's because NOTHING that can be done to put this nation back on its feet again can be done with him blocking the path. And all this butt-hurt from the left about Mitch McConnell stating the obvious is a deliberate effort by the left to distort the statement. Barack Obama has only himself to blame for the adversarial relationship he's got with Republicans. It was HIS JOB to set the tone. In fact, he even campaigned on it in 2008. Instead, he passed his responsibilities to Nancy Pelosi and passed stimulus (an all-pork product) without a single Republican vote in the House. Instead of the bipartisanship he promised, we got "I won", and it's been downhill from there.

And in reference to our liabilities, a different way to say that is 'promises we can't keep'. You might not give a crap about that, but I'm thinking most people do. All these young people paying in aren't going to get what's promised to them, and basically they're the ones Democrats prey upon.
Blink! U.S. Debt Just Grew by $11 Trillion - Bloomberg

 

[8537]

So basically what you're telling us is that Barack Obama is such a failure at leadership that he can't even interest his own party in his ridiculous agenda. Good to know.
But I guess we should've picked up on that when he couldn't even get one Democrat vote on his proffered budget.

Huh? He has moved more major legislation in 3.5 years than any other president in the modern era.

Oh... and you know why getting Barack Obama out of office is a Republican priority?... It's because NOTHING that can be done to put this nation back on its feet again can be done with him blocking the path.

Ha! Of course...and then you wonder why Democrats accuse Republicans of being obstructionist. It's because....watch it now....

Republicans ARE obstructionists, and they wear it proudly.

And all this butt-hurt from the left about Mitch McConnell stating the obvious is a deliberate effort by the left to distort the statement. Barack Obama has only himself to blame for the adversarial relationship he's got with Republicans. It was HIS JOB to set the tone. In fact, he even campaigned on it in 2008. Instead, he passed his responsibilities to Nancy Pelosi and passed stimulus (an all-pork product) without a single Republican vote in the House. Instead of the bipartisanship he promised, we got "I won", and it's been downhill from there.

You're right, after rounds of compromise with Republicans that produces a stimulus bill with 40% of its expense coming from TAX CUTS, Republicans turned around and voted against the very bill many of them helped negotiate. Because they are obstructionists, and proudly so.

And in reference to our liabilities, a different way to say that is 'promises we can't keep'.

No, that's not a different way of saying future liability. Words have meanings and you can't change the meaning to suit your fancy.

Well, you can - you do it all the time. But it just makes your argument look stupid.

 

[Murf76]

The 10 Year Tax Lie

It won't be a lie unless Romney proves it's a lie. The only way he can do that is by releasing those tax returns

Eh? What the hell are you talking about? The point of the thread is that this demand for candidates to release decades of tax records is NOT actually the norm as Obama supporters would have us believe it is.

 

[Murf76]

So basically what you're telling us is that Barack Obama is such a failure at leadership that he can't even interest his own party in his ridiculous agenda. Good to know.
But I guess we should've picked up on that when he couldn't even get one Democrat vote on his proffered budget.

Huh? He has moved more major legislation in 3.5 years than any other president in the modern era.

Oh... and you know why getting Barack Obama out of office is a Republican priority?... It's because NOTHING that can be done to put this nation back on its feet again can be done with him blocking the path.

Ha! Of course...and then you wonder why Democrats accuse Republicans of being obstructionist. It's because....watch it now....

Republicans ARE obstructionists, and they wear it proudly.

And all this butt-hurt from the left about Mitch McConnell stating the obvious is a deliberate effort by the left to distort the statement. Barack Obama has only himself to blame for the adversarial relationship he's got with Republicans. It was HIS JOB to set the tone. In fact, he even campaigned on it in 2008. Instead, he passed his responsibilities to Nancy Pelosi and passed stimulus (an all-pork product) without a single Republican vote in the House. Instead of the bipartisanship he promised, we got "I won", and it's been downhill from there.

You're right, after rounds of compromise with Republicans that produces a stimulus bill with 40% of its expense coming from TAX CUTS, Republicans turned around and voted against the very bill many of them helped negotiate. Because they are obstructionists, and proudly so.

And in reference to our liabilities, a different way to say that is 'promises we can't keep'.

No, that's not a different way of saying future liability. Words have meanings and you can't change the meaning to suit your fancy.

Well, you can - you do it all the time. But it just makes your argument look stupid.

More legislation? The only way he got his crappy Obamacare mess through was through the use of political bribes and twisting legislative procedure like a pretzel. And what he did manage to pass cost Democrats the House in 2010, that's how unpopular it is. Meanwhile back at the ranch... WHERE IS THE BUDGET??? And why didn't he get his tax hikes on the so-called rich while Democrats had super-majorities? To listen to him talk, that 28 billion per year is the panacea which will solve ALL the nation's problems, so where is it?

And where's the unity he promised? He came right out of the box combative with Republicans and that, after all his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Now, having proved himself a thin-skinned, authoritarian socialist, he whines like a little boy about "obstruction". Too right he's going to be obstructed. He LIED to America's face about his true political nature. Republicans shouldn't just be saying 'no' to Obama's collectivist view of American, they should be saying 'fuck no'. Why the hell do you think there's a Tea Party caucus now and there wasn't one before? It's because he's a goddamned socialist who thinks he can subvert our Constitution... and has.

All he's done is hand us MORE broken entitlements instead of repairing the ones we already have which are demonstrably in trouble. And you can deny all you want that we've got 222 trillion in promises we can never keep, but that won't change the fact that we do.

 

[8537]

So basically what you're telling us is that Barack Obama is such a failure at leadership that he can't even interest his own party in his ridiculous agenda. Good to know.
But I guess we should've picked up on that when he couldn't even get one Democrat vote on his proffered budget.

Huh? He has moved more major legislation in 3.5 years than any other president in the modern era.



Ha! Of course...and then you wonder why Democrats accuse Republicans of being obstructionist. It's because....watch it now....

Republicans ARE obstructionists, and they wear it proudly.



You're right, after rounds of compromise with Republicans that produces a stimulus bill with 40% of its expense coming from TAX CUTS, Republicans turned around and voted against the very bill many of them helped negotiate. Because they are obstructionists, and proudly so.

And in reference to our liabilities, a different way to say that is 'promises we can't keep'.

No, that's not a different way of saying future liability. Words have meanings and you can't change the meaning to suit your fancy.

Well, you can - you do it all the time. But it just makes your argument look stupid.

More legislation?

Yes! More legislation. And more major initiatives. Than any president on the modern era.

The only way he got his crappy Obamacare mess through was through the use of political bribes and twisting legislative procedure like a pretzel. And what he did manage to pass cost Democrats the House in 2010, that's how unpopular it is. Meanwhile back at the ranch... WHERE IS THE BUDGET??? And why didn't he get his tax hikes on the so-called rich while Democrats had super-majorities? To listen to him talk, that 28 billion per year is the panacea which will solve ALL the nation's problems, so where is it?

Once again, because you are apparently unfamiliar with the Constitution: Budgets do not originate or get passage in the executive branch. All spending bills originate in the house and must be agreed upon by the House and Senate before the president sees them.

And where's the unity he promised? He came right out of the box combative with Republicans

wait what? He came right out of the box and sat down with them to negotiate a stimulus package with them. They negotiated in good faith and got a host of concessions and tax cuts included.

They then turned around and voted against the bill some of them negotiated because their primary goal is to defeat Obama - that's not rhetoric, that's exactly what they said. Country be damned. If it's good for America right now, it's bad for Republicans.

Why the hell do you think there's a Tea Party caucus now and there wasn't one before? It's because he's a goddamned socialist who thinks he can subvert our Constitution... and has.

The Tea Party existed well before Obama became president

All he's done is hand us MORE broken entitlements instead of repairing the ones we already have which are demonstrably in trouble. And you can deny all you want that we've got 222 trillion in promises we can never keep, but that won't change the fact that we do.

Lol...someone doesn't understand how the trust funds are funded. We have no future liabilities related to the trusts. In fact, George W Bush made that fact explicitly clear in his reform proposals.

 

[Murf76]

Huh? He has moved more major legislation in 3.5 years than any other president in the modern era.



Ha! Of course...and then you wonder why Democrats accuse Republicans of being obstructionist. It's because....watch it now....

Republicans ARE obstructionists, and they wear it proudly.



You're right, after rounds of compromise with Republicans that produces a stimulus bill with 40% of its expense coming from TAX CUTS, Republicans turned around and voted against the very bill many of them helped negotiate. Because they are obstructionists, and proudly so.



No, that's not a different way of saying future liability. Words have meanings and you can't change the meaning to suit your fancy.

Well, you can - you do it all the time. But it just makes your argument look stupid.

More legislation?

Yes! More legislation. And more major initiatives. Than any president on the modern era.



Once again, because you are apparently unfamiliar with the Constitution: Budgets do not originate or get passage in the executive branch. All spending bills originate in the house and must be agreed upon by the House and Senate before the president sees them.




wait what? He came right out of the box and sat down with them to negotiate a stimulus package with them. They negotiated in good faith and got a host of concessions and tax cuts included.

They then turned around and voted against the bill some of them negotiated because their primary goal is to defeat Obama - that's not rhetoric, that's exactly what they said. Country be damned. If it's good for America right now, it's bad for Republicans.

Why the hell do you think there's a Tea Party caucus now and there wasn't one before? It's because he's a goddamned socialist who thinks he can subvert our Constitution... and has.

The Tea Party existed well before Obama became president

All he's done is hand us MORE broken entitlements instead of repairing the ones we already have which are demonstrably in trouble. And you can deny all you want that we've got 222 trillion in promises we can never keep, but that won't change the fact that we do.

Lol...someone doesn't understand how the trust funds are funded. We have no future liabilities related to the trusts. In fact, George W Bush made that fact explicitly clear in his reform proposals.

Like I said, the only crap he got through Congress cost him the House. And yeah... I've read the Constitution and how the legislature should work. I even know that spending bills are supposed to originate in the House and that Harry Reid hollowing out a bill to stick Obamacare into is a distortion of that procedure. But what can you expect from dishonest dirtballs like him?
The point is that Barack Obama has no ability to LEAD, no influence, no leadership skills. Then again, he never ran so much as a hot dog stand or worked a real job, so no one is much surprised.

And no... Obama didn't "sit down to negotiate" in any sort of honest fashion. He handed it off to Nancy Pelosi and her comrades in the House. He's thumbed his nose at the notion of bipartisanship at every turn, and then has the unmitigated gall to whine like a child because Republicans aren't falling on their knees to lick his socialist ass and support his efforts to "fundamentally transform" America.

In reference to your insistence that our unfunded liabilities don't exist... well, that's why people don't actually expect your party to get off its commie ass and actually do anything to preserve the entitlements you purport to believe in. Don't be surprised when we're swearing in President Romney in January... because he DOES recognize the need to repair our broken safety net and he DOES understand how to implement leadership, as witnessed by his governorship in Massachusetts with an 85% Democrat legislature and by his leadership at the fiscally successful Salt Lake Olympics.


Oh... and the Tea Party wasn't really an influential force to be reckoned with until Obama ignored the will of the people on Porkulus, and that's just the bottom line.

 

[8537]

The point is that Barack Obama has no ability to LEAD, no influence, no leadership skills. Then again, he never ran so much as a hot dog stand or worked a real job, so no one is much surprised.

you keep saying that, but it flies in the face of facts - such as the fact that he has fostered more legislation and more initiatives through congress than any president in the modern era.

And no... Obama didn't "sit down to negotiate" in any sort of honest fashion. He handed it off to Nancy Pelosi and her comrades in the House. He's thumbed his nose at the notion of bipartisanship at every turn, and then has the unmitigated gall to whine like a child because Republicans aren't falling on their knees to lick his socialist ass and support his efforts to "fundamentally transform" America.

So all those Republican measures added to the bill after meetings at the White House - he didn't play any part in those ?

Lol. OK then.

In reference to your insistence that our unfunded liabilities don't exist... well, that's why people don't actually expect your party to get off its commie ass and actually do anything to preserve the entitlements you purport to believe in. Don't be surprised when we're swearing in President Romney in January... because he DOES recognize the need to repair our broken safety net and he DOES understand how to implement leadership, as witnessed by his governorship in Massachusetts with an 85% Democrat legislature and by his leadership at the fiscally successful Salt Lake Olympics.

Yes, in Massachusetts he almost led the nation among the worst job creation numbers and he passed a healthcare plan that he now vehemently opposes.

And in Salt Lake, he got a huge government bailout to save the games. Nice work!

 

[Wry Catcher]

So basically what you're telling us is that Barack Obama is such a failure at leadership that he can't even interest his own party in his ridiculous agenda. Good to know.
But I guess we should've picked up on that when he couldn't even get one Democrat vote on his proffered budget.

Huh? He has moved more major legislation in 3.5 years than any other president in the modern era.



Ha! Of course...and then you wonder why Democrats accuse Republicans of being obstructionist. It's because....watch it now....

Republicans ARE obstructionists, and they wear it proudly.



You're right, after rounds of compromise with Republicans that produces a stimulus bill with 40% of its expense coming from TAX CUTS, Republicans turned around and voted against the very bill many of them helped negotiate. Because they are obstructionists, and proudly so.

And in reference to our liabilities, a different way to say that is 'promises we can't keep'.

No, that's not a different way of saying future liability. Words have meanings and you can't change the meaning to suit your fancy.

Well, you can - you do it all the time. But it just makes your argument look stupid.

More legislation? The only way he got his crappy Obamacare mess through was through the use of political bribes and twisting legislative procedure like a pretzel. And what he did manage to pass cost Democrats the House in 2010, that's how unpopular it is. Meanwhile back at the ranch... WHERE IS THE BUDGET??? And why didn't he get his tax hikes on the so-called rich while Democrats had super-majorities? To listen to him talk, that 28 billion per year is the panacea which will solve ALL the nation's problems, so where is it?

And where's the unity he promised? He came right out of the box combative with Republicans and that, after all his rhetoric on the campaign trail. Now, having proved himself a thin-skinned, authoritarian socialist, he whines like a little boy about "obstruction". Too right he's going to be obstructed. He LIED to America's face about his true political nature. Republicans shouldn't just be saying 'no' to Obama's collectivist view of American, they should be saying 'fuck no'. Why the hell do you think there's a Tea Party caucus now and there wasn't one before? It's because he's a goddamned socialist who thinks he can subvert our Constitution... and has.

All he's done is hand us MORE broken entitlements instead of repairing the ones we already have which are demonstrably in trouble. And you can deny all you want that we've got 222 trillion in promises we can never keep, but that won't change the fact that we do.

What is crappy about "Obamacare"?

You make numerous allegations, none new and all previously stated by other partisans and never have points and authorities been cited to make the case. My guess is you've never read the Constitution cover to cover, never taken ConLaw to aid you in understanding and never once looked up legitimate sources in an effort to understand constitutional issues.

You rant, but rants are never convincing of anything but the emotions being exposed. You expose your emotions but never provide any evidence of having taken and passed a course in Civics or US History.